Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed 11/13/2025, the following has occurred: claims 1-9 and 11-19 have been amended and claim 10 has been canceled. Now, claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: At the end of the amended language inserted in the middle of claim 1, the claim includes a period after “…availability of skill of physicians, or a combination thereof” and then includes additional language, ending in a final period. Claims should be written in single sentence form, ending with a single period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “said devices are a physical a device:” followed by a series of computing elements. The scope of this recitation is unclear. It is unclear if the series of computing elements is defining “said devices,” if “a physical a device” is a single device and the “said devices” is one of the listed devices, or some other scope. For examinations purposes, the limitation will be treated as “said devices comprise one or more of:”
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1 and includes several recitations of elements, previously recited in claim 1, and then subsequently references those elements, including “admin module” and “dashboard.” Therefore, it is unclear whether subsequent reference to these elements are referring to recitations in claim 1 or in claim 11.
Claim 11 further recites “wherein weights and values based on and in relation to the weight or value assigned to each or selected variables.” There is no previous recitation in claims 1 or 11 of “a weight or value assigned to each or selected variables.” Therefore, this recitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims.
Claims 12-19 are rejected based on their dependencies on claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites display patients, controller and patient devices to allow said provider to identifier and prioritize patients into a waiting queue said patients displayed into said waiting queue according to an assigned priority level based on a preliminary or subsequent examination; said priority level is confirmed, raised or lowered by an input operator, by the provider, by the system, or a combination thereof, based on presentation, patient state progression, improvement or worsening of symptoms; said patient is prioritized and made selectable by the system to said provider based on criteria including number of patients, nature of injury, nature or illness, patient presentation, severity of presentation, criticality of injury or illness, or a combination thereof: said provider or providers being selectable by the system for assignment to a provider based on criteria including availability of provider(s), number of providers, specialization of providers, experience of a provider, seniority of a provider, first or second language of a provider, or a combination thereof, said provider-patient assignment selectable by the system based on criteria including type of patient-physician interaction, ratio of patients to physicians, patient presentation and condition in relation to availability and skill of physicians, or a combination thereof; providing information comprising identifying information, tracking information, MRN, ICD codes, medical history, previous diagnoses, current complaint, insurance information, payment information, patient labs, patient prescription history, patient images, and enrollment information.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation encompass managing personal behavior, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. It is noted that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)C.II. For example, the claims encompass prioritizing a list of patients for a user to manually select, manually selecting and assigning a provider, manually selecting a provider-patient assignment, and providing information regarding the patient. Such manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claim 11 further recites entering by a provider a password protected provider admin module; logging into said admin module having a provider dashboard; said dashboard having a list of providers, a list of patients together with patient-specific devices; ranking said list of providers based on provider number, provider availability and provider skill; ranking said list of patients based on patient number, patient availability and patient condition severity; said provider and patient ranking, separately or in combination, via selectable criteria via algorithmic computation, intuitive logic wherein weights and values based on and in relation to the weight or value assigned to each or selected variables; accessing a patient waiting device queue, an online device queue, or a combination thereof, of preidentified and configured patient devices; said waiting device queue consisting of mobile and desktop devices; said online devices consisting of RPi4 devices; said waiting and online devices further designated by a client facility; accessing one of said waiting devices, online devices and client facilities; choosing a patient with an associated configured patient device; and conducting a telemedicine session..
These limitations incorporate the limitations of claim 1 through dependency and further encompass managing personal behavior, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. It is noted that certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)C.II. For example, the claims further encompass a user manually entering a password and logging into a module, ranking providers and patients, accessing a device queue (note the devices are merely descriptive of the queue), manually accessing device or facility information, manually choosing a patient associated with a device. Such manual steps also encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-9 and 12-19 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claim 12 further recites ranking physician and patients would could also be carried out manually. Claims 13-15 further expand on the queue information, identified above as part of the abstract idea. Claims 16-19 further expand on manual activities of the patients and providers. As explained above, these manual steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with adding elements similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19, directly or indirectly, recite the following additional elements similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment: The devices, memory, and modules of claim 1 and carrying out certain steps “by the system.” More specifically, claim 1 recites the following additional elements: “one to a plurality of servers; one to a plurality of processors; said processors configured to execute machine readable instructions via software, hardware, firmware, some combination of software, hardware, and/or firmware, and/or other mechanisms for configuring processing capabilities on processor(s);said processors execution executing [[of]] processor-readable instructions, the processor-readable instructions, circuitry, hardware, storage media, or any other components; a memory; said memory being integral, removable or both integral and removable; said memory including a database, a public or private distributed ledger, or both; said memory comprised of electronic non-transitory storage media electronically storing information including machine readable instructions; said machine readable instructions comprising: an admin module, a platform configuration module, a provider module, and a patient module; said admin module managing said provider module, said patient module and a patient's device module; said configuration module selecting a configuration file for a patient's device; said provider module exhibiting a provider-specific module displaying a provider-specific dashboard indicating both selectable patients and patient devices; said provider dashboard displaying.” Each of these recitations represent no more than generic computer components and network communication for carrying out the abstract idea.
Claim 11 carried out “via the system of claim 1” encompasses the system of devices, memory, and modules of claim 1. However, carrying out the method “via the system” or “by the system” does not specify particular elements of the system used in the recited steps. Therefore, these recitations simply links claim 11 to the technical environment of claim 1.
Furthermore, claim 1 itself includes recitations of carrying out steps identified as part of the abstract idea “by the system.” This similarly does not specify particular elements of the system used in the recited steps and also simply links the abstract idea to the technical environment of claim 1.
The claims also recite several devices, but merely as descriptors of information. Claims 2-9 further define the devices, configuration file, system configuration files, downloading or sharing a link to a script, telemedicine communication, internet communication. These recitations continue to be recited a high level of generality as generic computer components that are part of the generic telemedicine system. There is no indication that the combination of additional elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Finally, “conducting a telemedicine session” is recited at a high degree of generality and merely links the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. Therefore, each of these limitations are recited at a high degree of generality, implemented in a fashion similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “physical device (e.g., mobile phone, laptop, tablet, desktop computer, cart, wearable device, or other suitable device), program, or computer application” (see paragraph 0036). As set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”).
Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. a system of devices, memory, modules) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Additionally, the aforementioned additional elements, considered in combination, do not provide an improvement to a technical field or provide a technical improvement to a technical problem. Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horbal, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0139572 in view of Quinn, US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0049719 and further in view of Spencer, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0337520.
As per claim 1, Horbal teaches a system for providing single-platform and multi-platform telemedicine communications across and between various devices comprising: one to a plurality of servers (see paragraph 0041; platform can comprise on or more servers); one to a plurality of processors (see paragraph 0030; platform includes processors); said processors configured to execute machine readable instructions via software, hardware, firmware, some combination of software, hardware, and/or firmware, and/or other mechanisms for configuring processing capabilities on processor(s) (see paragraphs 0045-0046; system includes processors with access to data storage, hardware, software, firmware, etc.); said processors made to execute processor-readable instructions, the processor- readable instructions, circuitry, hardware, storage media, or any other components (see paragraph 0022; memory and media that is executable by at least one computer processor); a memory (see paragraph 0030; data storage devices); said memory being integral, removable or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0030; data storage devices); said memory including a database, a public or private distributed ledger, or both (see paragraph 0043; platform communicates with databases); said memory comprised of electronic non-transitory storage media electronically storing information including machine readable instructions (see paragraph 0022; memory and media that is executable by at least one computer processor); said machine readable instructions comprising: an admin module (see paragraph 0024; online platform having a plurality of modules); said admin module consisting of a provider module, a patient module (see paragraphs 0047-0049; describes provider module, client module (patient module)); said provider module displaying a provider-specific dashboard indicating both selectable patient and patient device (see paragraph 0049; provider module displays a provider dashboard including information related to the provider and patients; Fig. 3F shows provider interaction with dashboard, including selecting client info (patient) and select client (patient device)); said provider dashboard displaying patients, a controller and patient device tiering, and patient devices to identify and prioritize patients into a waiting patient queue (see paragraph 0071; dashboard shows patient in waiting queue; Fig. 3F shows provider interaction with dashboard, including selecting client info (patient) and select client (patient device); see paragraph 0049; provider dashboard provides options with different types of information related to the provider and its client; paragraph 0061 describes table of upcoming appointments (identifies and prioritizes patients)); said patients displayed into said waiting queue based on a preliminary or subsequent examination (see paragraph 0061; a list of upcoming appointments may be for preliminary or subsequent examinations); said patient is prioritized and made selectable by the system to said provider based on criteria including number of patients, nature of injury, nature or illness, patient presentation, severity of presentation, criticality of injury or illness, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0071; waiting room lists upcoming appointments listed in a table, based on patient, provider, reason for visit, date, time, status); said provider or providers being selectable by the system for assignment to a provider based on criteria including availability of provider(s), number of providers, specialization of providers, experience of a provider, seniority of a provider, first or second language of a provider, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0075; availability of provider for appointment based on provider calendar); said provider-patient assignment selectable by the system based on criteria including type of patient-physician interaction, ratio of patients to physicians, patient presentation and condition in relation to availability and skill of physicians, or a combination thereof (see Figure 2-1; reason for visit is a type of patient-physician interaction); said patient module providing identifying information, MRN, ICD codes, history, diagnosis, insurance information, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0048; client (patient) module includes client identification, medical history and other related information); a platform configuration module incorporating configuration files (see paragraph 0043; platform may be configured to interface, communicate, and exchange information with several different types of devices and systems); and a communication device or devices (see paragraph 0043; lists several examples of communication devices).
Horbal does not explicitly teach a patient’s device module, said device module capable of recognizing multi-platform devices detectable and accessible by one or more configuration files. Quinn teaches a patient’s device module, said device module capable of recognizing multi-platform devices detectable and accessible by one or more configuration files (see paragraph 0238; analytics software selection element allows analytics developer ability to access, add, modify information related to data associated with multiple selection elements, including patient device element; paragraph 0081; software can be downloaded to reside on and be operated from different platforms used by a variety of operating systems). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the device module with the plurality of platform modules of Holbal with the motivation of supporting the processing of medical data from a variety of sources (see paragraph 0008 of Quinn).
Horbal and Quinn does not explicitly teach the waiting queue being according to an assigned priority level; said priority level is confirmed, raised or lowered by an input operator, by the provider, by the system, or a combination thereof, based on presentation, patient state progression, improvement or worsening of symptoms.
Spencer teaches a patient waiting queue according to an assigned priority level (see abstract; prioritizes a list of waiting patients based on a priority level); said priority level is confirmed, raised or lowered by an input operator, by the provider, by the system, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0027; priority level is confirmed based on patient acceptance), based on presentation, patient state progression, improvement or worsening of symptoms (see paragraph 0042; priority may be based on severity of symptoms). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate a priority level within the patient listings of Horbal and Quinn with the motivation of improving the wait of patients (see paragraph 0003 of Spencer).
As per claim 2, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Horbal further teaches providing single-platform and multi-platform telemedicine communications across and between various devices wherein said devices may be a physical a device: a mobile phone, laptop, tablet, desktop computer, a telecart, wearable device, or other suitable device, a program or computer application (see paragraph 0043; mobile phone, laptop, tablet, desktop, etc.).
As per claim 3, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Horbal further teaches said configuration file is a shell script, an executable file, or a data file which include driver information, operating system information, browser information, video information, network information, database information, API information, or other relevant information, which is accessed from memory or retrieved and downloaded (see paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0043; platform may be configured to interface, communicate, and exchange information with several different types of devices and systems using computer program code application.).
As per claim 4, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Horbal further teaches configuration files are actuatable by executing code to configure and customize said configuration files compatible with said patient's device (see paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0043; platform may be configured to interface, communicate, and exchange information with several different types of devices and systems using computer program code application, including patient/client module – paragraph 0048).
As per claim 6, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches the system of claim 2 as described above. Horbal further teaches providing single-platform and multi-platform telemedicine communications across and between various devices wherein a said computer application is accessible via a graphic user interface (see paragraphs 0026-0028; describes telehealth processes between provider and client devices).
As per claim 7, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Horbal further teaches providing single-platform and multi-platform telemedicine communications across and between various devices wherein said server or servers are operably coupled to one or more devices via a network or information conveyed directly between devices (see paragraphs 0026-0028; describes telehealth processes between provider and client devices; paragraph 0041; platform can comprise one or more servers and a plurality of devices can interface and become part of the virtual platform.).
As per claim 8, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches the system of claim 7 as described above. Horbal further teaches said network is an internet, an intranet or a combination thereof for transmission of information either encrypted, unencrypted of a combination of encrypted and unencrypted information (ee paragraphs 0026-0028; describes telehealth processes between provider and client devices; paragraph 0041; platform can comprise one or more servers and a plurality of devices can interface and become part of the virtual platform; paragraph 0043; platform can be accessed over the Internet).
As per claim 9, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches the system of claim 1 as described above. Horbal further teaches said device is operably coupled to a controller, a display, a camera, a microphone, speakers, and a user input device which is controllable by a user remotely (see paragraphs 0043 and 0047; describes display, camera, microphone, speakers, input).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horbal, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0139572 in view of Quinn, US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0049719 and Spencer, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0337520, and further in view of Harrison, US Patent No. 7,853,241.
As per claim 5, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. Horbal, Quinn, and Sepncer does not explicitly teach said system can prompt a user of a device to download or share a link to a script whereby the script can determine the device settings and transmits settings to the system, configuration or customization based on device type and model. Harrison teaches a system can prompt a user of a device to download or share a link to a script whereby the script can determine the device settings and transmits settings to the system, configuration or customization based on device type and model (see column 5, line 54 – column 6, line 3; detecting by a communication software system a device type, used by a user to send a function request, enabling system to identify a user interface format compatible with the device type), which may be used by a provider in scheduling an appointment for patient visit (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to add device type settings to the device system of Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer with the motivation of improving remote access to physician practice management systems (see column 1, lines 25-35 of Harrison).
Claim(s) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horbal, US Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0139572 in view of Quinn, US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0049719 and Spencer, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0337520, and further in view of Siva, US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0239614.
As per claim 11, Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer teaches a method for conducting a telemedicine session via the system of claim 1 between a provider and patient, via the following steps. Horbal further teaches: entering by a provider a password protected provider admin module (see paragraph 0089 and Fig. 3C; shows platform sign-in process); logging into said admin module having a provider dashboard (see paragraph 0089 and Fig. 3C; shows platform sign-in process); said dashboard having a list of providers (see paragraph 0064; clinic providers); accessing a patient waiting device queue, an online device queue, or a combination thereof, of preidentified and configured patient devices (see paragraph 0052; virtual waiting room, which a client accesses via their device – paragraph 0041; online device queue, listed in the alternative, need to be shown in the prior art); said waiting device queue consisting of mobile and desktop devices (see paragraphs 0041 and; mobile devices and desktop computers; paragraphs 0070-0071; virtual waiting room can be entered via a user’s device); said online devices consisting of RPi4 devices (online device queue, listed in the alternative, need to be shown in the prior art); said waiting and online devices further designated by a client facility (see paragraphs 0041 and; mobile devices and desktop computers; paragraph 0028; virtual office being a client facility; online device queue, listed in the alternative, need to be shown in the prior art); accessing one of said waiting devices, online devices and client facilities (see paragraph 0052; logged in client can then be admitted by provider to commence appointment; online device queue, listed in the alternative, need to be shown in the prior art); choosing a patient with an associated configured patient device (see paragraph 0052; logged in client can then be admitted by provider to commence appointment; patient device used for appointment is configured for the access); and conducting a telemedicine session (see paragraph 0052; logged in client can then be admitted by provider to commence appointment).
Horbal does not explicitly teach the dashboard has a list of patients together with patient-specific devices. Quinn teaches a dashboard that has a list of patients together with patient-specific devices (see paragraph 0186 and Figure 21; provider interface includes patient data and patient devices data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include patient devices in the dashboard of Horbal with the motivation of improving the health of patients related to use of recommended applications (see paragraph 0190 of Quinn).
Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer does not explicitly teach ranking said list of providers based on provider number, provider availability and provider skill; ranking said list of patients based on patient number, patient availability and patient condition severity; said provider and patient ranking, separately or in combination, via selectable criteria via algorithmic computation, intuitive logic or artificial (machine) learning wherein weights and values may be based on and in relation to the weight or value assigned to each or selected variables.
Siva teaches ranking said list of providers based on provider number, provider availability and provider skill; ranking said list of patients based on patient number, patient availability and patient condition severity; said provider and patient ranking, separately or in combination, via selectable criteria via algorithmic computation, intuitive logic or artificial (machine) learning wherein weights and values based on and in relation to the weight or value assigned to each or selected variables (see paragraphs 0023-0024; the system uses a weighted ranking of available providers for different types of care service, reflecting skills and condition severities, based on patient data; paragraph 0031; patients are ranked based on lifetime value). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the ranking of Siva in the appointment waiting list of Horbal, Quinn, and Spencer with the motivation of optimizing and streamlining patient interactions with providers (see paragraph 0004 of Siva).
As per claim 12, Horbal, Quinn, Spencer, and Siva teaches the method of claim 11 as described above. Horbal, Quinn, Spencer does not explicitly teach physician number, availability and skill and patient number, availability and condition severity may be ranked, separately or in combination, via selectable criteria via algorithmic computation, intuitive logic or artificial (machine) learning wherein weights and values may be based on and in relation to the weight or value assigned to each or selected variables. Siva furth teaches physician number, availability and skill and patient number, availability and condition severity may be ranked, separately or in combination, via selectable criteria via algorithmic computation, intuitive logic or artificial (machine) learning wherein weights and values may be based on and in relation to the weight or value assigned to each or selected variables (see paragraphs 0023-0024; the system uses a weighted ranking of available providers for different types of care service, reflecting skills and condition severities, based on patient data; paragraph 0031; patients are ranked based on lifetime value.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine these features with the system of Horbal, Quinn, Spencer for the reasons given above with respect to claim 11.
As per claim 13, Horbal, Quinn, Spencer, and Siva teaches the method of claim 12 as described above. Horbal further teaches said waiting device queue, an online device queue, or a combination thereof, of preidentified and configured patient devices may be prioritized and tiered according to said selectable criteria including: number of queued patients, type of queued patients, number of queued providers, types of queued providers, time of queued patient registration, patient presentation, patient examination, patient history, an additional examination, a patient's state progression, a patient's symptoms worsening or improvement, urgency, acuteness of injury or illness, chronic nature of injury or illness, or a combination thereof, for provider selection of patient (see paragraph 0071; waiting room lists upcoming appointments listed in a table, based on patient, provider, reason for visit, date, time, status).
As per claim 14, Horbal, Quinn, Spencer, and Siva teaches the method of claim 12 as described above. Horbal further teaches said waiting device queue, an online device queue, or a combination thereof, of preidentified and configured patient devices may be prioritized and tiered according to said selectable criteria including: number of queued patients, type of queued patients, number of queued providers, types of queued providers, time of patient registration, patient presentation, patient examination, an additional patient examination, a patient's state progression, a patient's symptoms worsening or improvement, urgency, acuteness of injury or illness, chronic nature of injury or illness, or a combination thereof, for patient selection of provider (see paragraph 0071; waiting room lists upcoming appointments listed in a table, based on patient, provider, reason for visit, date, time, status.).
As per claim 15, Horbal, Quinn, Spencer, and Siva teaches the method of claim 12 as described above. Horbal further teaches said waiting device queue, an online device queue, or a combination thereof, of preidentified and configured patient devices may be prioritized and tiered according to said selectable criteria including: number of queued patients, type of queued patients, number of queued providers, types of queued providers, time of patient registration, patient presentation, patient examination, an additional patient examination, a patient's state progression, a patient's symptoms worsening or improvement, urgency, acuteness of injury or illness, chronic nature of injury or illness, or a combination thereof, for patient selection of provider, provider selection of patient or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0071; waiting room lists upcoming appointments listed in a table, based on patient, provider, reason for visit, date, time, status.).
As per claim 16, Horbal, Quinn, Spencer, and Siva teaches the method of claim 12 as described above. Horbal further teaches priority may be given, patients may be selected, patients may not be selected, or patients may be triaged by intake personnel, automatically via preset criteria or by the provider (see paragraph 0052; patient selected by provider admitting the client to virtual appointment.).
As per claim 17, Horbal, Quinn, Spencer, and Siva teaches the method of claim 12 as described above. Horbal further teaches said patients may make selection or non-selection of providers based on number, availability, knowledge, skill, or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0051; client schedule an appointment with a specific provider or specific type of specialist or a generalist.).
As per claim 18, Horbal, Quinn, Spencer, and Siva teaches the method of claim 12 as described above. Horbal does not explicitly teach said provider may control device settings remotely. Quinn further teaches said provider may control device settings remotely (see paragraph; provider may access, add, or modify information related to health applications that are used by patients.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to incorporate the device application management with the plurality of platform modules of Holbal with the motivation of supporting the processing of medical data from a variety of sources (see paragraph 0008 of Quinn)
As per claim 19, Horbal, Quinn, Spencer, and Siva teaches the method of claim 12 as described above. Horbal further teaches a provider may conduct sessions with patients, other providers or a combination of patients and providers (see paragraph 0052; provider and specialist can admit the client and commence the appointment.).
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed 07/25/2025, Applicant argues (1) the claim objections and rejections under 112(b) have been overcome by the amendments; (2) the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by providing technical improvements related to the healthcare of a patient and communication between patient and provider (pages 3-5 of the remarks); (3) the claims improve technology by aiding ease of accessibility of communications, coordinating interactions between patients, allowing for care without regard to location, and allocating scarce healthcare resources, citing Enfish for support; (4) the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea by reciting a combination of additional elements that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional; (5) Horbal and Quinn do not teach a telemedicine system and methods capable of single platform, multi-platform and multi-device communication, via a plurality of configuration files; (6) Horbal and Quinn does not teach the analytical analysis using algorithmic computation, intuitive logic or artificial (machine) learning to access and treat patients based on need; (7) Horbal does not teach providing communications across multiple, disparate devices and formats for closed implementation over a private intranet across different operating systems; (8) neither Horbal nor Quinn suggest combining their respective teachings; (9) Harrison, Horbal, and Quinn do not suggest combining their respective teachings; (10) Spencer has a different approach to prioritizing patients and providing healthcare; (11) Siva does not address urgent care prioritization, inherently time dependent, location-dependent provider utilization.
In response to argument (1), the examiner respectfully maintains the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections. As explained in the rejections, certain recitations are unclear and indefinite and have not been addressed in the amendments.
In response to argument (2), the examiner respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejections as set forth above. The majority of the arguments related to these improvements fall within the abstract idea itself. For example, the argued improvement of triaging patients and allocating physicians, this does not represent a technical improvement but, rather, a business improvement to patient care. Allocating resources according to patient number, type, presentation, diagnosis is also not indicative of a technical improvement but, rather, a business improvement to patient care. Allocating physicians according to skill, knowledge, specialty, availability, location is also not a technical improvement but, rather, a business improvement to patient care. Furthermore, these argued improvements, to the extent they are represented in the claims, are part of the abstract idea itself. Finally, several of the argued features do not appear to correspond to what is recited in the claims and the arguments here do not cite specific claim limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The alleged improvements, while recited in the specification, do not have a clear nexus with the limitations recited in the claims. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
In response to argument (3), as explained above, while the argued improvements are improvements to healthcare, they do not represent a technical improvement. Using remote devices to facilitate communications between a patient and care giver simply utilize generic computer components to implement the abstract idea. In contrast, Enfish provided a technical improvement by creating a data structure that reduced the speed of access in data queries. This improved the operation of the computer processing itself. The pending claims do not recite such a technical improvement.
In response to argument (4), as set forth in the updated 101 rejections, the combination of additional elements, considered both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, none of the additional elements have been asserted to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. Rather, the additional elements amount to nor more than generic computer components, utilized as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Additionally, the recitation that the “method of conducting a telemedicine session” is “via the system” simply links the abstract idea of claim 11 to the technical field of claim 1. Notably, the structural elements of claim 1 are not references in the method of claim 11. Claim 11 is merely dependent on claim 1. Therefore, the additional elements recited in claim 1 merely server to generally link the abstract idea to that technical field. Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2016.05(h) and Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
In response to argument (5), claim 1 recites a system for “providing single-platform, multi-platform, or a combination thereof, telemedicine platform communications across and between various devices.” The claim also recites “devices detectable and accessible by one or more configuration files.” Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the limitations recited in the claims. The claims encompass only a singe platform and the use of a configuration file for accessing devices, both of which are described in the teachings set forth above.
In response to argument (6), Siva is relied on to teach these features, as set forth in the above rejections, rendering this argument moot.
In response to argument (7), the claims do not appear to recite any limitations related to formatting and it is unclear what limitations are being referenced by “closed implementation.” Additionally, while the claims references multiple “devices,” the claims do not require communication between “disparate” devices, different formats, or different operating systems. However, the examiner does respectfully maintain that Horbal does teach communication with multiple devices (e.g. paragraphs 0041-0046 describing multiple, different devices used for communication). Therefore, because the claims are broader in scope than what is argued by Applicant, these arguments are not found to be persuasive.
In response to argument (8), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teachings of Quinn suggest, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the combination of teachings. Quinn suggests supporting the processing of medical data from a variety of sources (see paragraph 0008 of Quinn), which would motivate the combination of features.
In response to argument (9), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teachings of Quinn suggest, to one of ordinary skill in the art, the combination of teachings. Harrison suggests improving remote access to physician practice management systems (see column 1, lines 25-35), which would motivate the combination of features.
In response to argument (10), these arguments, presented at pages 13-14 of the reply, identify selected teachings of Spencer and how a summary of the invention differs from those teachings. However, the argument does not identify specific claim limitations missing in the relied up teachings of Spencer. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Additionally, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies, describing a summary of the invention, are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to argument (11), it is difficult to respond to the argument because it does not explicitly correspond to the language used in the recited claims. However, the examiner does maintain that Siva teaches weighted ranking of providers and ranking of patients (paragraphs 0023-0024; the system uses a weighted ranking of available providers for different types of care service, reflecting skills and condition severities, based on patient data; paragraph 0031; patients are ranked based on lifetime value). As set forth in the updated rejections above, the examiner respectfully maintains that Siva teaches the recited limitations for which it is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Arshad, US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0011179, discloses a telemedicine system facilitating communication between proprietary and non-proprietary devices.
Singh, International Publication No. WO 2017/105602 A1, discloses telemedicine communication platforms for communicating health-related information between patient and provider.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Luke Gilligan whose telephone number is (571)272-6770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
C. Luke Gilligan
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683